Posted
by
samzenpuson Thursday August 05, 2010 @04:07PM
from the preferred-traffic dept.

Nrbelex writes "Google and Verizon are nearing an agreement that could allow Verizon to speed some online content to Internet users more quickly if the content's creators are willing to pay for the privilege. Any agreement between Verizon and Google could also upend the efforts of the Federal Communications Commission to assert its authority over broadband service, which was severely restricted by a federal appeals court decision in April. People close to the negotiations who were not authorized to speak publicly about them said an agreement could be reached as soon as next week. If completed, Google, whose Android operating system powers many Verizon wireless phones, would agree not to challenge Verizon's ability to manage its broadband Internet network as it pleased."Update: 08/05 20:03 GMT by T:
nr3a1 writes with this informative update excerpted from Engadget: "Google's Public Policy Twitter account just belted out a denial of these claims, straight-up saying that the New York Times 'is wrong.' Here's the full tweet, which certainly makes us feel a bit more at ease. For now. '@NYTimes is wrong. We've not had any convos with VZN about paying for carriage of our traffic. We remain committed to an open internet.' Verizon's now also issued a statement and, like Google, it's denying the claims in the original New York Times report."

"The New York Times is quite simply wrong," wrote Mistique Cano, a Google spokesman, in an e-mail. "We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet."

A Google spokeswoman told the Guardian: "The New York Times is quite simply wrong. We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic. We remain as committed as we always have been to an open internet.

Verizon has also moved to dismiss the story. A company statement reads: "The NYT article regarding conversations between Google and Verizon is mistaken. It fundamentally misunderstands our purpose. As we said in our earlier FCC filing, our goal is an internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation. To suggest this is a business arrangement between our companies is entirely incorrect."

We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google traffic.

Perhaps the NYT got only part of it wrong?

Doesn't anyone else find it odd they didn't simply say, "We have not had any conversations with Verizon about carriage of Google traffic"? Either their PR person is new or there is something under the covers here and they are simply semantically side-stepping.

Various State Governments still hold the monopoly licenses for Verizon, Comcast, and others. That gives them power to regulate and enforce net neutrality, or else revoke said license and give it to somebody else.

It always happens this way.
Big corporations with the big money eat the small companies. If you can not afford to pay for driving on the highway, you have to drive on the second class roads. Same for the Internet - the big corporations now can have fast servers, with fast speeds, while the small business and individuals can not afford speed, offering slower services.
Nothing new under the sun.

I don't know where you live, but highways here aren't restricted by how much you. They are a public resource and encroachment by a company is a crime. As far as end users of the highways, its not a valid analogy.

Perhaps its time to declare the networks a public resource before its too late.

I don't know about other highways, but all those things are untrue of the highway 407 in Ontario.

There's a complicated pay structure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Highway_407#Tolls), which includes per-trip fees, distance fees that vary depending on which section of highway you're driving on and when you're driving on it (which is used as a surrogate for depending on traffic) and your vehicle weight and size (which is as close to bandwidth as you get on a highway), and whether you have a transponder or they had to go to the difficulty of reading your license plate from a camera snapshot.

So "you only pay once" is false, and you do pay a different amount depending on where you're travelling and with what and how much, and while the cities themselves aren't directly paying for extra vehicles, their residents are being charged more because their section of highway is considered higher traffic.

You're under the wrong impression. While there are different structures in different places, toll roads are often leased to corporations to operate and profit from. The idea is that theres a "cost saved" by the taxpayers not having to maintain the roads. I've never understood this, as the private corporations are able to make a profit (see I-80/90 in Indiana, operated by an Australian firm) despite having to maintain the roads. BTW, the police still have to enforce traffic laws themselves, and bear that cos

Maryland's I-95 through Baltimore. Rich people can pay extra and take the express lane

Correction: people whose trip is worth more than the toll can take the express lane. Rich people by definition have more money than time, so this generally applies to them, but even normal people can take advantage from time to time when they feel it is worthwhile.

I actually think this is a pretty good way to allocate a scarce resource.

the Annapolis government gets to keep the money to pay off its debt. So basically we hav

Google do not make all the worlds rules. One thing they are good at is adapting to them and trying to make the best out of bad situations. Google had hoped for legislation forbidding deals like these but when the politicians dont dare, google adapts.

Google do not make all the worlds rules. One thing they are good at is adapting to them and trying to make the best out of bad situations. Google had hoped for legislation forbidding deals like these but when the politicians dont dare, google adapts.

Google has enough market power to effectively set the rules.

If Google said "We will no longer serve any Google content to any ISP which violates Net Neutrality", the debate would basically be over. You wouldn't even need any government regulation.

Despite its market power, Google does NOT control the food chain.If 10 major ISPs decide tomorrow to do a "little favor" to Bing (God forbid), this would immediately and effectively hurt Google - massively.

I'd say it's impossible. Google is too big to ignore. Frankly, if something like that happened you'd see congressional involvement. The market as a whole, however, is bigger than Google. When the top players all want tiered services, eventually they'll find a way to get it, even if it means death to the internet as we know it.

Hyper-reporting and politics did billions of dollars in damage to the tourism industries all through the Gulf states. The oil did very little damage. The administration needs to be apologizing to the thousands they put out of work for their illegal moratorium on drilling. But that is off-topic.

If Google was that brazen in attempting to give major ISPs marching orders, you would see all of the major players throttle their bandwidth and prioritize Yahoo and Bing just to make it clear that Google can't control them.

If Google said "We will no longer serve any Google content to any ISP which violates Net Neutrality", the debate would basically be over. You wouldn't even need any government regulation.

That would be Google shooting themselves in the foot with a shotgun. A company whose primary source of income is advertising doesn't really have the option of abandoning a large (potential) customerbase, especially when several large companies would not wait to fill the void Google would leave behind.

As part of the deal, Verizon would agree not to selectively throttle Internet traffic through its pipes. That would not, however, apply to data traveling over its wireless network for mobile phones, the report says.

That fits. The mobile providers are terrified of being seen as mere data carriers, because it would disassociate their one real asset - phone numbers - from their network. Currently you can only reach a phone number on their network, via their network (or via a roaming agreement). Switching your phone number to another network is a pain in the ass.

Remove that anchor, and customers will be free to migrate from one network service to another. Which means they would have to operate on their merits, which they really don't want to have to do.

Its called number porting and happens all the time. Here in the EU operators are required to service a porting within a month - in the coming years we will be required to service them within 1 week, then 1 day and finally within the hour of a request, so no, it wont be a pain in the ass.

Obviously, if you do something silly and handcuff yourself to a contract for 2 years, then yes it's a pain, but you lie as you lay your bed.

Here in the US where the story is taking place (and where Verizon is actually a carrier as opposed to the EU where AFAIK they are not), porting a number is possible but is a pain in the ass. I know some of the snobs in the UE find this hard to believe, but the US is its own sovereign nation and has governing bodies and regulatory agencies both distinct from and operated differently from the EU. Technology is very little of the issue.

Take for example the issue my wife and I have with trying to get onto a family plan. I can port my number to her cell company, but I'd still need a separate plan. They can't combine a number with my area code on a plan with a number in her area code. Their people just haven't put the time into making it possible, even though the two area codes border one another. We could port her number to my cell provider, but then she'd lose the free calling to her large family and most of her hundreds of other contacts that she made when her provider dominated her area where she grew up.

Our solution so far has been to keep my cell phone number with my existing provider, which gives 3G coverage here but 2G where my wife is from and free calling to most of my family and friends and to keep her phone number with her existing provider which offers 3G where she's from but 2G here and free calling to most of her family and friends.

What? Switching a phone number to another network is easy as pie. People do it all the time. Porting your number is a standard part of the procedure for getting a new subscription. At least in the EU. Here, phone companies are required to support it, and it's a good thing too.

The only way customers are bound to networks is through their contracts, and phone companies pull some weird shit to keep existing customers in.

I'm currently writing software for mobile phone contracts. It's ridiculous how many different kinds of discounts existing customers can get for renewing their contract. (Of course the discounts are optional. You don't get them automatically, but only when you're planning to leave. Don't forget to renew your contract every time it ends, or you'll be missing out on tons of discounts!)

What? Switching a phone number to another network is easy as pie. People do it all the time. Porting your number is a standard part of the procedure for getting a new subscription. At least in the EU. Here, phone companies are required to support it, and it's a good thing too.

The only way customers are bound to networks is through their contracts, and phone companies pull some weird shit to keep existing customers in.

I'm currently writing software for mobile phone contracts. It's ridiculous how many different kinds of discounts existing customers can get for renewing their contract. (Of course the discounts are optional. You don't get them automatically, but only when you're planning to leave. Don't forget to renew your contract every time it ends, or you'll be missing out on tons of discounts!)

Switching numbers on wireless phones use to be impossible in the States. The wireless providers weren't required by law to allow people to port their numbers, so they didn't do it. If you wanted to keep your number, you effectively had to keep your wireless provider. That all changed a few years ago when the government extended phone number porting laws to the wireless providers. It had been like that for years on land lines.

As crap as Canada's wireless cartel are, they're still required to let you port your number from one carrier to another. In practice it takes a couple of hours, although they do warn you it could take a day or so.

Of course, here three year contracts are standard, and the three companies that own ~95% of the market offer essentially the same services/products at the same prices, so I don't think most people take advantage of this.

CNET cites Bloomberg for their article. Almost everything I can find on the news sites so far directly points back to either the NYT article or the Bloomberg aticle which directly contradict each other. Until more information is known, I am inclined to believe Bloomberg over the NYT article because it paints a more realistic situation then what the NYT article does. In order for NYT to be correct, Google would have had to do a complete 180 on all the work they've done so far to push net neutrality. The Bloomberg article paints a much more rational picture of a compromise deal that at least ensures net neutrality on landlines.

They got into the stock exchange. That means a lot of minor investors who would be quite content to own a not evil corporation, and a few big ones that dictate the policy and could not care less if it's google inc. or saddam hussein inc.

Anyway the problem is not (lack of) network neutrality. That's a symptom. The problem is network topology. Internet has become centralized. It cannot be a bastion of freedom that way and IMHO it developed so fast because it wasn't meant to be.

Full disclosure, I work for Google. But I have no say in these kinds of things. Normally I wouldn't comment on such an article, but do I think it's enlightening to hear Google's side of the story. Therefore, here are CEO Eric Schmidt's recent comments on this topic:

"People get confused about Net neutrality," Schmidt said. "I want to make sure that everybody understands what we mean about it. What we mean is that if you have one data type, like video, you don't discriminate against one person's video in favor of another. It's OK to discriminate across different types...There is general agreement with Verizon and Google on this issue. The issues of wireless versus wireline get very messy...and that's really an FCC issue not a Google issue."

Basically, it's important for VOIP to have a certain quality of service for clear voice calls, but different QOS rules may make sense for other data types. For example, downloading raw data files can be bursty. Precaching future web pages or Javascripts doesn't have to always succeed. But, "you don't discriminate against one person's [data] in favor of another".

That's an interesting point of view, but as a customer, what say do I get in this I wonder. Example, if a bunch of CEOs decide video is more important so they give it priority over everything else, but to me it's not nearly as important as moving around large files or having a snappy web, will I get a choice in the matter - do I get a discount because I'm not enjoying super fast video, or do I have to pay the same as people who are getting much greater benefit than me because they're only using their connec

Basically, it's important for VOIP to have a certain quality of service for clear voice calls, but different QOS rules may make sense for other data types. For example, downloading raw data files can be bursty. Precaching future web pages or Javascripts doesn't have to always succeed. But, "you don't discriminate against one person's [data] in favor of another".

I get what you're saying about the differing technical requirements of different sorts of communication on the Net. Neutrality with respect to th

"People get confused about Net neutrality," Schmidt said. "I want to make sure that everybody understands what we mean about it. What we mean is that if you have one data type, like video, you don't discriminate against one person's video in favor of another. It's OK to discriminate across different types...There is general agreement with Verizon and Google on this issue..."

And what if Verizon decides to prioritize a particular type of data that Google just so happens to use a lot of, at the expense of slowing down other types of data like P2P traffic?

Verizon: We'll speed up latency-sensitive data streams, like online video.Google: What a coincidence! YouTube uses that kind of data.Hulu: Hey, our users use video too.Verizon: Ah, but that's not the kind of video we're prioritizing.PirateBay: Torrent traffic seem to be almost completely blocked.Verizon: Quiet, you.

Basically, it's important for VOIP to have a certain quality of service for clear voice calls, but different QOS rules may make sense for other data types

Do you remember when the millimeter wave full-body scans weren't going to be recorded? But now they routinely are? [slashdot.org] Remember when seatbelt laws would only be enforced in conjunction with another type of violation, but now they are an arrestable violation all on its own? [enotes.com] Maybe you don't remember these things, but I do, with countless other examples I could name, I see a trend....

If it's possible, they'll do it and they already have (Comcast vs Torrents, anyone? [arstechnica.com]) and the only reason they don't do it more is because people got pissy about it. [cnet.com] We need to get pissy about this, too. Somehow, despite lacking all these vital QoS rules, the Internet has grown to become the dominant global information network, winning out over many other networks having such things as QoS enforcement. (EG: Proprietary ATM networks, etc)

Sorry, but I like my Internet the way it is, spam and all. It really needs to be nothing more than a Network of Endpoints [worldofends.com] all sharing equivalent potential value. Let people decide what's valuable and what's not.

Verizon won't discriminate between Hulu and Netflix or Amazon video downloads. They'll all download at the same rate - so slow as to be unusable, or at least so slow as to make Verizon's pay per view an attractive alternative, because Verizon sells video downloads and will have that incentive.

The agreement means that Verizon won't be able to give their own video downloads an advantage like you describe.

"we will do whatever makes us the most money regardless of the damage it causes."

In what way do you believe that your scenario (giving Verizon PPV an advantage over other video services like YouTube) helps Google make more money?

There is the potential problem when one service uses a different avenue of communication than the competing services. Such as when one company provides video as bulk data downloads, and another only provides them via video-stream. Or when one company provides navigation information some kind of direct-to-device status update, but others are forced to use standard internet packets. I'm not saying it's wrong (or that it could even be effectively regulated), but it is quite possible to differentiate the sam

It's the Boiling Lobster principle. You carefully word the first announcement as a "compromise", then later when it's OldHat, you "modifiy certain ancillary factors". (Nice juicy words sure to bore the public.)

Yes, you can complain to the multi-billion dollar corporation and they will change their plans just for you, give up their ill-gotten gains, because you're just THAT special.

As far as switching providers... maybe you're not one of the millions of Americans without much choice.Maybe you actually have the option to move from Verizon, who is deliberately slowing down their competition... to your cable company... who is deliberately slowing down their competition.

The problem is that PIPELINE companies are allowed to be CONTENT companies and then now want to disadvantage other companies dependent on that pipeline.

Requiring one company to serve another without obstacle is ludicrous? Wrong, shithead, it's NORMAL, it's the LAW for example in the case of phone companies. They are required to allow competing long distance carriers to use the lines to your house without degradation... have been for decades... and more recently, were forced to allow competing LOCAL carriers to use their lines without degradation.

The result? Lower long distance prices, lower local call prices. More innovation. AT&T was essentially a monopoly, and breaking it up and forcing carriers to allow other companies equal access helped serve the public good.

You know what other effect it had?

Why, it created the FUCKING INTERNET as we know it - public access to it, that is.

Started with Carterphone, then Sprint. Govt. intervened to force AT&T to allow competing equipment to use its lines. Before this, the only plans for internet like systems were totally closed, corporate controlled lame-assed useless teletext plans that were delayed, years in the future. AT&T had no real plans. Cable companies had the idiotic Qube, for example.

What happened when anyone could use the lines for whatever, connect any equipment, without restriction, without degradation or prioritization?

MODEMS happened. The public embrace of the internet happened. There would BE no web you're using today if the government hadn't intervened and FORCED a company to allow equal access to its lines.

Government regulation of what are essentially monopolies or common carriers prevents total monopoly, consolidation, reduction of choice, services and quality, and massive price gouging, despite what your free market religion tells you.

How did the government deregulation of the financial industry work out, huh?

How is this evil? Seriously, two companies partner to provide better service to their mutual customers and you consider it evil? How about when AAA teams up with hotel chains to give me a discount, is that evil too? Or, when AAA partners with towing companies to ensure I am towed within a certain period of time (a form of tow truck QOS), is that evil? Google wants to provide a better service to it's customers/users - when did that become evil?

Right, and as soon as this happens how many other companies then Google will queue up to get their website content delivered faster to consumers?

Of course Verizon won't increase the bandwidth to get this content delivered faster. They'll prioritize the paid content over the unpaid content, meaning that the small guys will be stuck on the "lower tier" of the Internet.

And of course, once Verizon are doing this, the other network providers won't want to miss out on the potential double profit of getting content providers and consumers to pay for the faster service

Just what I thought - "google will be paying verizon to speed up youtube" isn't as vague as GP suggests. Unless Google are paying an absolute fortune, it won't be sufficient to upgrade infrastructure to pay for the additional speed, and since we're seemingly already at capacity (there might be a bottleneck in delivering the content from Google to Verizon but there's also a bottleneck in delivering it from Verizon to the home, solving one won't solve the other) the only way to achieve that extra speed is to

Their motto has been thrown down the drain with the recent press releases, media coverage, and acquisitions. It's almost as if they're no longer the original company with their great philosophies.

1. Investment in Zynga, a company who's CEO admitted to using forms of fraud to ensure the success of his company.
2. Acquisition of Slide, another company whose success is mostly based upon their acknowledged violation of MySpace's Terms of Service.
3. Discontinuation of Google Wave, a product which despite relatively low adoption levels, is very powerful and useful for many users. It's basically as awesome as GMail, but for a more niche market.
4. Now, (even though talks began 10 months ago) an agreement which undermines Net Neutrality... not by lobbying against it, not by crossing their arms regarding the issue, but by planning to make an agreement between another private company, as if the Internet were owned by them (Google)?

I'm dumbfounded. Simply dumbfounded.

I've sincerely been a Google supporter since a little kid, and loved their products, services, and philosophies... and for most of this time, I ignored most critics, since Google actually kept doing good for the most part. Now, all of that has changed. I'm very disappointed in Google.:/

If you really feel that way, then vote with your business and use Yahoo Search [yahoo.com]. if enough people dumped them over this they might have second thoughts, and at the very least you would be standing up for your principles and supporting an underdog. Yahoo Search is really good now, especially the "More" tab (that is the little tab below the search box after you've run a query) which not only gives you common words added to your search like Google, but related concepts, such as searching for "Dark Knight" will

At one point, there was an article, titled "Facebook Wants To Be Your One True Login". It, at one point, became the top Google search result for: "facebook login", thus changing the behavior of Firefox's Awesomebar for the command: "facebook login". The article is here [readwriteweb.com]. Skip directly to the comments.

I used Bing once a few days ago, because Google kept giving me shit results. I felt dirty, like noob searching for the very first time. But then a series of conflicting emotions went through me as Bing gave me better results than google.

Yeah, let that sink in.

I still don't know how to feel about that day. I figure that I'll pretend it never happened, just like that gay experience that I never had.

The tone of the article suggests that the FCC's ability to maintain Net Neutrality is on life support. It appears as though Google have seen the writing on the wall and are trying to "stake ground" under what they probably see as a new business landscape.

According to this [bloomberg.com] Bloomberg story, the New York Times is only accurate in that Google and Verizon negotiated net neutrality on everything but mobile networks, and hence Verizon will be allowed to do traffic discrimination on those lines.

But I find it a little odd to write up that story as "Google and Verizon negotiating an end to net neutrality" rather than as "Google and Verizon negotiating to preserve net neutrality on most internet connections."

So, basically from reading the two articles I'm pissed that they jerked me around like that. It's intentionally misleading and reactionary.
Everything could be true in that article if they would have prefaced, "Google has made a deal to put Net Neutrality into practice right now for everything but mobile traffic."
You are all being lied to by this article

Verizon Communications Inc. and Google Inc. have struck their own accord
on handling Internet traffic, as both participate in talks by U.S. officials
on Web policy, two people briefed by the companies said.

The compromise as described would restrict Verizon from selectively slowing
Internet content that travels over its wires, but wouldn't apply such limits
to Internet use on mobile phones, according to the people, who spoke yesterday
and asked not to be identified before an announcement.

Bravo slashdot. You made me panicked and then pissed off at your mods before breakfast.

Bingo. Remember, the old Bell system philosophy was that the phone company controlled all traffic on their networks, and charged everyone for everything that passed their network, under the protection of a government monopoly. They have been trying to recreate this for over two decades now, and preventing that is what the net neutrality fight is really about.

Eveyone keeps quoting the "do not evil" mantra, but we have something a lot more solid on Google's own site:

Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody - no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional - has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can't pay.

Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight. Please call your representative (202-224-3121) and let your voice be heard.

I'm not taking sides, and the details have not been announced, but it better not go 180 on the statement above.By the way, the official press releases from the companies are set to be out on bad-news-Friday. Not a good sign...

IMHO, not only has Verizon become an evil glutton when it's come to data plans in combination with certain (all) phones which are marketed almost as bad as laptops and PCs are now-a-days (e.g. "Multimedia", "Great for checking e-mail and updating your twit-face account"), but THEN want to add tiered broadband access constraints at the user for something they *always* got, and now start referring to some access as *premium*? This shit is out of control.

If I buy a Verizon phone, everything except Google (and a few other wealthy content providers) is slower. If I buy an AT&T phone, its all a delivered at 'best effort' speeds. I wonder which phone I should buy?

Google is shooting themselves in the foot here. Their success as a search engine hinges on my ability to find some other web site using their service. If they buy their way to the top of the heap, so to speak, they are screwing over the content providers upon which they rely. Sure, the search loads faster. But my overall time spent staring at the screen is the same, since they slowed down the site I was interested in.

If this is due to coercion on Verizon's part, I'd be in favor of granting Google execs immunity for their testimony before Congress or to the Justice epartment.

Quite frankly, I would leave any carrier that "speeds up" some special content. Why? Because do the math, how can they make it go faster? By raising the speed of light? Maybe they will bury a few thousand miles of fibre, just for Google? Come on! The only way they can make people who paid for the priviledge faster is by slowing everything else down.

They can do that directly (e.g. slow it down unless it is paid for) or indirectly (e.g. by using QOS and other routing tricks), but what happens is that they don't provide the best possible service anymore, unless someone pays extra for it.

Thank you, but no. I'd change to a carrier that provides the best possible service because as a subscriber I am already paying for that. So, Verizon and to all you other marketing monkeys at other carriers thinking about a stunt like that: How about I don't pay you my subscription fee as quickly as I used to, unless of course you book the special "speedy delivery" service? I'm sure my bank would love a piece of the action as well.

The part of me that really just wants Google to be doing the right thing after all really wants me to believe that they're doing this to spark outrage to make net neutrality a law.
The rest of me is disappointed until that suspicion gets confirmed.

Wouldn't it be best to raise a fuss and (figuratively) bash a few CEOs and Congresswhore's heads in until corporations were no longer legally allowed to be persons, with the rights of people, and instead are treated as what they really are - organizations with no inherent legal rights, only those granted to them by the charter given them by government (ie, representatives of REAL people), a charter that is regulated, is conditional on their following certain rules, and which can be revoked should they break

That something, could simply be Verizons doing because the folks I know all have given up on Youtube and are frustrated with its performance lately. I can say that it has started in the past 6 months, maybe even longer.

It has become so annoying, that everytime I hope Youtube works right, it doesnt.